Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing. The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.

Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing. The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.

Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing. The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.

Please explain further.

Sure. It would stand to reason that people who are dependent on liberal social programs for income/services are less likely to vote against the liberal agenda (don't bite the hand that feeds). It would seem to logically follow that the more people that can be made dependent on those programs, the less people that would vote against said agenda.

Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing. The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.

Please explain further.

Sure. It would stand to reason that people who are dependent on liberal social programs for income/services are less likely to vote against the liberal agenda (don't bite the hand that feeds). It would seem to logically follow that the more people that can be made dependent on those programs, the less people that would vote against said agenda.

That doesn't make much sense. The ACA isn't really a social program like food stamps or unemployment. There is no benefit paid to anyone using it. And someone who had health coverage before isn't going to be happy if they have to move into a higher cost or lower coverage health plan. So they probably wouldn't vote liberal if that happened.

Now, if the ACA is a fantastic law that helps a lot of people and makes them happy, there's a chance they will vote for the party responsible for passing the law.

My arguments are quite different from "Alex Crawford's" argument. I'm not arguing against the merits of the bill. I'm arguing the overall inability of the bill to address the root cause of the problem it supposedly addresses.

"Daniel Seaver's" argument looks like it could have been lifted verbatim from your posts in this thread.

Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing. The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.

Please explain further.

Sure. It would stand to reason that people who are dependent on liberal social programs for income/services are less likely to vote against the liberal agenda (don't bite the hand that feeds). It would seem to logically follow that the more people that can be made dependent on those programs, the less people that would vote against said agenda.

That doesn't make much sense. The ACA isn't really a social program like food stamps or unemployment. There is no benefit paid to anyone using it. And someone who had health coverage before isn't going to be happy if they have to move into a higher cost or lower coverage health plan. So they probably wouldn't vote liberal if that happened.

Now, if the ACA is a fantastic law that helps a lot of people and makes them happy, there's a chance they will vote for the party responsible for passing the law.

"There is no benefit paid to anyone using it".

Holy ****, did you really just say that? Haven't you been saying all along that the entire justification of the ACA is that it provides healthcare to people who didn't have access to it before. Is that not a benefit to those who use it?

My arguments are quite different from "Alex Crawford's" argument. I'm not arguing against the merits of the bill. I'm arguing the overall inability of the bill to address the root cause of the problem it supposedly addresses.

"Daniel Seaver's" argument looks like it could have been lifted verbatim from your posts in this thread.